John Forester

Your observations about web page development are completely irrelevant to a discussion of proper roadway traffic-cycling technique.

joejack951

Good point. I'll make that clearer from now on.

LCI_Brian

Can someone start a thread about chocolate and see how many posts it takes to get to bike lanes?

joejack951

See post #112 for the assertion that bike lanes remove cyclists from traffic. I'm well aware that not every bike lane proponent feels this way but I believe that far too many do.

Brian Ratliff

And you feel you have to correct such obviously wrong assertions, don't you? Let it go. Let other's have their opinions. If you want to discuss some aspect of bike lanes, get your own thread. It's pretty easy. There's a link at the top of the page that says "Click here to start a new thread."

joejack951

I felt as though it relates to the thread topic. Maybe I should have made my point more clearly and stated that a vehicular cyclist will realize that even when he is riding in the space demarcated by a bike lane that he is still a part of the traffic on the roadway. You seem to agree that it's obviously wrong to believe the opposite which could imply that you feel it is an important distinction to make, right? Could it not be included as a way to distinguish between two cyclists both riding in a bike lane, where one has a vehicular attitude and one does not?

randya

Please, we're dying for a poll!!!!

Bekologist

i believe i mentioned in post #2 the true believers of CV have to oppose on road bike infrastructure, even if they use them.

I think for guys like head and ol' mossy, it IS all about the bike lanes. they don't want to have more people out riding bikes because of bike infrastructure. they want to keep riding bikes elitist because of their own psychological disorders.

those punters (head, old mossy) suck tailpipe. and neither ride in traffic much!

Helmet Head

DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IS A PARODY (PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT THE DISCLAIMER)

I'm sorry that you're wrong.

(do these types of posts exchanging baseless statemens of pure opinion contribute anything positive to the forum?)

DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IS A PARODY (PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT THE DISCLAIMER)

randya

^^ off your meds again???

Brian Ratliff

No, you are wrong.

PS. I do this just to piss him off.

Brian Ratliff

First, the "space demarcated by a bike lane" is "the bike lane." To say it like you have it written would be "the space demarcated by a bike lane line." But, I know, a true VC'ist cannot bring himself to admit that the "space demarcated by a bike lane line" is, in fact, a "bike lane." That would be to admit that the bike lane, is *gasp* a lane!

Second, I am not following you. What does a bike lane have to do with being a Vehicular Cyclist?

Helmet Head

It's not a "line", Ratliff, it has breadth (4 to 6" wide) and thickness (it's painted). It's a stripe. Sheesh!

Ask and answered:

And (from above):
"A vehicular cyclist will realize that even when he is riding in the space demarcated by a bike lane [stripe] that he is still a part of the traffic on the roadway."

JJ argues that recognizing that riding in a bike lane does not separate you from traffic -- that you're just as much a part of traffic as you would be if the bike lane stripe was not there -- is a distinguishing characteristic of a vehicular cyclist. It's part of "what makes a Vehicular Cyclist". Note that your father, for one, has demonstrated that this distinguishing characteristic does not apply to him. And here is what natelutkjohn wrote, which clearly implies that he beliefs bike lanes separate cyclists from motor traffic:

Bekologist

ho hum. the "vehicular cyclist" that hardly rides his bike pontificates once again.

natelutkjohn

And you imply you don't bicycle much at all, therefore you must not.... I believe they are the same as having a slow lane and a fast lane - much safer to go in the slow lane if you are slow then in the fast lane if you are fast. Also, slow-moving LARGE vehicles tend to be much easier to see with thier flags and occasional signs. A motorist comes over a hill/around a corner/just not paying attention at 45mph and a dude is going 5mph in the center of the lane all VC like and no matter what any of you its say, it is not just as safe as if they were in a "slow" bike lane doing the same speed. Although, yes, he sure has the right to ride in that jane JJ, but he shouldn't have to if he wants to go to work.

As a side note, what about the elderly who like to ride? Many are fit as a fiddle and can handle high speeds, others are not, should they be forced to get off the bike to drive places because they don't have the strength or 100% coordination to fully power a bicycle at safe speeds and super straight lines, fighting headwinds, cross winds etc? A slower lane is much safer then not having one at all - at least give people an option you control freaks.
But wait, why did I ask this question? I keep forgetting that HH, JF and others know whats best for me and the rest of us. THANKS dads!

sbhikes

Another thing that makes one a Vehicular Cyclist(TM) is you have to be blind to anything to the right of certain stripes on the road (but not others). The whole road must simply vanish to the right of certain kinds of stripes.

You have to become incapable of recognizing some roadway markings as being part of the roadway. And you have to be able to convice yourself that the same exact markings on the road are a valid part of the roadway if they aren't associated with bicycles.

You must also have such a severe fear of the rear that you feel a need to ensure evasive manuevers occur with every approaching vehicle before you will yield (of course you'll naturally have to yield anyway, but you like to think you are in control so you learn to fool yourself this way that you're in control and "safe".)

I think these are called deslusional beliefs, using the non-psychiatric definition. So basically, to be VC(TM) (with capital letters) you must have delusions.

Helmet Head

Imagine a road with a slow and fast lane. Now, remove the stripe. Is it any less safe? At first glance it may seem so, but not if you think it through. What actually happens is that all traffic slows down because of the ambiguity caused by the lack of clear demarcated stripes. What stripes do to a road is not make it safer, but make it just as safe at higher speeds. That is, all the bike lane stripe does is allow the cars passing you in the adjacent space to be passing you at a higher speed. Is that a benefit to cyclists?

Same with slow truck lanes. That's not a benefit to the truck drivers. It's a benefit to the drivers of cars who can now pass the slow trucks easier, without having to slow down. I don't see the Teamsters lobbying for more slow truck lanes. It's silly for bike advocates to be lobbying for essentially the same thing for cyclists, particularly in areas with intersections (pretty much any urban or suburban street). We should be encouraging traffic calming measures, like removing bike lane stripes, not adding them.

Yes, this is easy to imagine, but there is no evidence that shows there is any truth to this claim. On my commute is a blind right-hand curve where motorists at 50+ mph are regularly taking the inside track, driving in the bike lane. Evidence for this is:

1. that part of the bike lane is always noticably cleaner than the rest of it,
2. the stripe is more worn there
3. I see it just about any time I drive or bike there.

Never-the-less, when there is a bike in the bike lane, they always see him and move left (I watch them do this in my mirror regularly) just as they would if the stripe were not there.

Your question is based on the assumption that "a slower lane is much safer than not having one at all", the very issue we are debating. That's called "putting the cart before the horse", and is a common logical fallacy.

I just explained the reasons I believe this assumption is not true. Do you accept these reasons, or not? If not, what are your reasons? (assuming your position is based in reason, pardon me if it isn't, in which case we have nothing to discuss).

Bekologist

lets remember, everybody, that vehicular cyclists can and do use bike lanes, all over the country, to ride vehicularily on roads.

Bekologist

why do all the threads degenerate into a noobie telling all the other riders on this forum how flawed road engineering design is if it includes a bike lane?

what is up with a team fred weekender dissing on other, much more vehicular cyclists' points of view on this forum?

John Forester

That's nothing but semantic foolishness. Nobody suggests that a bike lane is not a lane. It is the repeated appearance of such foolishness that demonstrates the lack of intellectual basis for "bicycle advocacy", put deliberately in quotes because it is not advocacy for cyclists.

Bekologist

so you agree, mossy? why belittle a point you agree with?

BLIZZ

In the winter time when the snow removes the lines from visibility {at least in my area of the country}, traffic doesn't move more efficiently.
When drivers are left to their own ideas of were the lines in the road should be, they come up with all kinds of different ideas. Some drive in the middle, where the line is between two same direction lanes. Some are right on the curb, and some take some of the space dedicated to oncomming traffic!
Drivers seem to need a bit of a visual indication of where they should place their car. This can be complicated by the fact that a lot of people don't have any indea where the corners of their car are.{they pass you much closer than they think sometimes}.

Helmet Head

To be fair, I have argued that a bike "lane" is not treated by drivers or traffic engineers as a real "lane", but, rather, more like a shoulder. I suspect this might be what Ratliff the younger was referring to.

John Forester

Falsehoods from beginning to end, falsehoods that have been corrected so many times that repeating them has now degenerated into telling lies to suit your ideology. There's nothing elitist about cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Therefor, there is nothing elitist in opposing the views and programs that are opposed to cycling properly. We do not wish to limit cycling to some elitist few; all that we wish is that more cyclists rode properly and safely, and that society supported such operation instead of opposing it.

natelutkjohn

There really is nothing to discuss with a hard head like you. I should have just stopped long ago man. I don't have the time to pick your asinine posts apart and then re-quote every part with a reply that has nothing to do with what was said, just so you can get an unrelated point across to your peanut gallery acolytes.